Which government administers elections

The role of state election offices have become even more important since the National Voter Registration Act NVRA of and the Help America Vote Act HAVA of , both of which put additional responsibilities on the state, including more uniform procedures for voter registration, centralization of voter records and disbursement of funds for the procurement of updated voting equipment and improvement of election administration procedures.

Even so, the structure of election administration in the states today is still largely decentralized and contains a great deal of variation, although far less so than it was a century ago.

Secretaries of state have other duties in addition to the management of elections. For example, they may administer business filings and licensing in the state, and act as the keeper of the state seal. Enforcing campaign finance regulations may fall to a secretary of state or state elections board in some cases, and in others would fall to a separate ethics commission. When there is both an elected individual and a board or commission charged with elections, the division of duties varies.

Rhode Island is one example of shared responsibilities. Regardless of who the chief election official is, there are some duties that fall to the state office of elections. These include: ensuring that election laws are followed by local officials statewide; administration of a statewide voter registration database required by HAVA; assisting local election officials by providing training courses or materials on running elections in the state; and providing a process for testing and certifying voting equipment for use in the state.

Some state offices provide certification programs for local election officials on election procedures and may also help pay for certain types of elections, or a portion of expenses. Table 1 contains information on the title, methods of selection, and appointing authorities for chief election officials in all 50 states. I n countries with high rates of illiteracy, election management bodies should design ballots that include party emblems or photographs of candidates in order to facilitate voting.

If there are minority languages in a country, it is good practice to print ballots and voter education material in all the languages commonly used. Election bodies, especially at the polling-station level, must take care to ensure the secrecy of the ballot and to prevent family voting as a critical element in ensuring that women can cast confidential, independent ballots.

Creating equal conditions for all candidates is typically a key function of election management bodies. While this is usually seen in terms of equal treatment for contesting political parties, it applies equally to men and women candidates.

High campaign spending limits work to the benefit of the richest candidates, who are usually men. Failure to prevent incumbents from unfairly using public resources for their campaigns can disadvantage women, since incumbents are most often men. Weak or vague media regulations may mean that women candidates do not get equal access to or treatment in the mass media.

Intimidation during the election campaign and at the polls may be a problem, especially in post-conflict countries. In some circumstances women voters and candidates may be more likely than their male counterparts to experience intimidation.

Providing adequate security at polling stations is one step election management bodies can take to address this issue. More generally, however, they should work to foster a peaceful campaign environment.

Even the process of counting ballots may disadvantage women in certain circumstances. As a rule, ballots should be accepted as valid if the intent of the voter is clear. The adoption of overly strict rules for determining the validity of ballots—for example, requiring that a ballot with a check mark rather than a cross next to the chosen candidate be disqualified—can work against illiterate or poorly educated voters, including women. Election management bodies should ensure that complaint and appeals procedures are clear and easy to use.

To the extent possible, election management bodies should collect sex-disaggregated data on all aspects of the electoral process, including voter registration and voter participation, in order to highlight any discrepancies or weaknesses that might require attention.

The FEC administers federal campaign finance laws; however, it has no jurisdiction over the laws relating to voting, voter fraud and intimidation, election results or the Electoral College. Every two years, the FEC publishes Federal Elections , a compilation of official, certified federal election results. These publications include primary, runoff and general election results for the Senate, the House of Representatives and when applicable the President.

Virgin Islands. See also this list of State Election Offices for information about candidates on state ballots and election results. Sign-up to receive an email alert when election results are posted. To view Election Dates, please go to the Election Dates page. Access the Electoral College Home Page. HAVA also requires that the chief state election official and the official responsible for the state motor vehicle authority enter into an agreement to match information in the database of the statewide voter registration system with information in the database of the motor vehicle authority to verify the accuracy of the information provided on applications for voter registration.

The report does not address Congress's authority to regulate nonstate actors in regard to elections. Although Congress has significant authority to regulate the behavior of private individuals, organizations, or corporations as regards elections, such regulations may raise First Amendment free speech and free association issues that are beyond the scope of this report. I, Section 2, cl. Smiley v. Holm, U. Smiley , U. See Roudebush v. Hartke, U. Gradwell, U. Mosley, U. See also United States v.

Simms, F. Renfro, F. Adams, F. II, Section 1, cl. See also Buckley v. Valeo, U. ACORN v. Edgar, 56 F. Reno, 60 F. Miller, F. Further support for this position is seen in Oregon v. Mitchell , where Justice Black wrote " It cannot be seriously contended that Congress has less power over the conduct of presidential elections than it has over congressional elections.

Although Justice Black wrote the opinion of the Court, no other Justice joined this portion of his opinion, as the other Justices instead focused on Congress's power under the Fourteenth Amendment. Mitchell , but rather an interpretation albeit uncited of Article I, Section 8, cl.

See quoted text accompanying note Newberry v. United States, U. Storer v. Brown, U. See, e. National Republican Party, F. Richard L. Hasen, " Too Plain for Argument? Colloquy , XIII prohibiting slavery , Amend. XIV due process and equal protection and Amend. XV voting rights. It should be noted that RFRA may still be constitutionally applied to the federal government. Gonzales v. Se e, e. Garrett, U. Katzenbach, U. Before Shelby County was decided, the Supreme Court had signaled that Section 5 was vulnerable to constitutional challenge.

Holder , the Court cautioned that the VRA's preclearance regime and coverage formula "raise serious constitutional questions. According to the Court, the voting discrimination that Section 5 was designed to address may not be concentrated in the covered states and jurisdictions that were currently subject to preclearance. Furthermore, the Court warned that the coverage formula was based on data that were more than 35 years old, and therefore failed to account for current political conditions.

Under the equal footing doctrine, Congress may not impose conditions on states upon admission that otherwise exceed Congress's authority. Coyle v. Smith , U. But see South Carolina v. The Court noted that a proposal to grant such authority was considered at the Constitutional Convention, but rejected in favor of allowing state laws to take effect, subject to later challenge under the Supremacy Clause.

See 1 Records of the Federal Convention of , pp. Farrand ed. Shelby County , S. In National League of Cities v. Usery , the Court conceded that the legislation under attack, which regulated the wages and hours of certain state and local governmental employees, was undoubtedly within the scope of the Commerce Clause, but it cautioned that there are attributes of sovereignty attaching to every state government which may not be impaired by Congress, not because Congress may lack an affirmative grant of legislative authority to reach the matter, but because the Constitution prohibits it from exercising the authority in that manner.

Justice Blackmun's opinion for the Court in Garcia concluded that the National League of Cities test for "integral operations" in areas of traditional governmental functions had proven impractical, and that the Court in had "tried to repair what did not need repair.

A later case presented the question of the extent to which Congress could regulate through a state's executive branch officers. This case, Printz v. The Brady Handgun Act required state and local law-enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers within five business days of an attempted purchase.

This portion of the act was challenged under the Tenth Amendment, under the theory that Congress was without authority to "commandeer" state executive branch officials. After a historical study of federal commandeering of state officials, the Court concluded that commandeering of state executive branch officials was, like commandeering of the legislature, outside of Congress's power, and consequently a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

United States v. Classic, U. Edgar , 56 F. Maryland, 17 U. I, Section 8, cl. South Dakota v. Dole, U. Sebelius seems to suggest an alternative line of analysis regarding coercion.

The Court, in a controlling opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, found that the enforcement mechanism for the ACA Medicaid expansion, withdrawal of all Medicaid funds, was a violation of the Tenth Amendment. Justice Roberts's opinion in NFIB , however, addressed a slightly different question than Dole : whether a grant condition attached to a "new and independent" program here, the Medicaid expansion that threatened the funding of an existing program here, Medicaid violated the Tenth Amendment.

Justice Roberts's opinion in NFIB held that, in the case of existing program funding being conditioned on the adoption of a "new and independent" program, the amount of federal funds at issue cannot represent a significant portion of a state's budget, or its withdrawal will be found to be unconstitutionally coercive under the Tenth Amendment. Topic Areas About Donate.

Download PDF. Download EPUB. Topic areas Constitutional Questions. Summary In the United States, states have primary responsibility for the administration of federal elections.